2012 (6) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of Registration granted to the appellant under Rule 9 - succession - Held that - As present appellant is carrying on the manufacturing activity and he is also paying the excise duty on manufactured goods no reason to cancel the impugned registration - set aside the impugned order and allow the appellants to carry on his manufacturing activity under the registration already granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Validity of registration granted under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; Cancellation of registration as ordered in the impugned order.

Analysis:
The judgment by Shri Mathew John of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, delves into the issue of the validity of the registration granted to the appellant under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and whether it should be cancelled as per the impugned order. The case revolves around the firm M/s Shivaji Biri Works, which had a Central Excise license prior to the death of the proprietor. Subsequently, the registration was obtained in the name of the deceased proprietor's wife and later in the name of Madan Babu Kesarwani. The latest registration in the name of Shri Madan Babu Kesarwani was granted on 16.9.2003. The appellant's brother objected to this registration, leading to proceedings initiated by Central Excise officers to cancel the registration based on complaints from the brothers. The High Court of Allahabad had dismissed a writ petition filed by the brothers regarding this matter.

During the hearing, it was emphasized that Central Excise registration is not an asset subject to dispute over succession. The individual carrying out the manufacturing activity must inform the department and pay the required Central Excise duty. The appellant had fulfilled these obligations, and any dispute regarding ownership should be addressed in a civil court, not before the Tribunal. Since the appellant was actively engaged in manufacturing activities and paying excise duty, the Tribunal found no grounds to cancel the registration. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appellant to continue the manufacturing activity under the existing registration.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the distinction between Central Excise registration and ownership disputes, asserting that the Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to resolving ownership issues. The decision to allow the appellant to retain the registration was based on the fulfillment of manufacturing obligations and excise duty payments, rather than the ownership disputes raised by the appellant's brothers.